WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog 12

As a note, all the business (amendments and motions) I’m talking about can be found here.

1245: Meeting adjourned. IT WAS A WILD ONE. I think Friday is only going to be more wild, my goodness. See you all there! WITH TEA!

1244: We are out of time. And have only barely done what’s required of the preliminary meeting. Other things will have to be done tomorrow before amendments, etc, can be debated.

1244: Rules are suspended so meeting can adopt proposal to thank Mr. Mitchell for his many years of service.

1243: Mitchell, who has hosted WSFS.org and Worldcon.org since it has been registered 20 years ago. Mail administration is becoming less fun. But his opinion is that the hosting now needs to be handed over to a more professional entity, which he is happy to help with.

1242: KS: This brings us to no more time remaining.

1241: Nominations closed, voting will be tomorrow.

1241: Glazer nominates Bruce Farr, who has accepted in writing.

1240: Next order, calling for nominations to the MPC. Someone nominates three members whose terms are expiring.

1237: Back in session. MPC report. It’s been a very productive year for the MPC, they fought up a very expensive challenge to one of the service marks. Cost a lot, a lot of committees donated to it. Directed to create entity to pursue mark protection outside the US, took over a failing nonprofit and are now working on registering marks in the EU. Budget analysis done, have recommendation for adjustment with funding since that has not been dealt with since 1984. Thanks to organizations (Lonestar Con called out for thanks) and individuals who donated to helping get the EU process started.

1235: Technical recess, two minutes. TEA TIME, KIDS.

1235: PI by Secor, debate time limits reset each day.

1235: 36 minutes of debate time set for EPH.

1233: Time to set debate time for EPH. There are some high numbers proposed, including 60 and 42. Holy geeze.

1233: Motion to amend by substitution fails by a lot.

1232: No objection to ending the debate. Even KS is temporarily confused as to what the question is. Okay, the question is are we going to throw out EPH and substitute committee creation language.

1232: Jack Foy for EPH points out there’s already been a ton of fan debate on EPH and it deserves to be considered as it stands.

1230: Glazer, PI what the hell is actually going on (basically, not his words, my summation). KS says that if the amendment is passed, this throws away the EPH language entirely and substitutes just going to committee. Which would then be debated on Sunday because that when EPH will actually be debated, this is just substituting the language.

1229: Dr. Lurie wishes to amend the amendment and it’s complicated and it’s out of order anyway. Okay, so says that three years of this is not okay, people who created problem are still going to keep making the problem.

1229: Prior precedent, apparently.

1228: Objection: does not a committee created here have to report back tomorrow?

1227: Yalow moves to substitute. There is groaning. Moves to substitute for adoption language, to create committee to consider the matter rather than making a constitutional amendment. To report back next year.

1226: Debate is ended. Postponement dies. EPH referred to CotW tomorrow, will be voted on, Sunday. Debate time.

1225: Lead for EPH: Doesn’t change anything with how people vote. Says if there are no slates from hereon out, EPH will change absolutely nothing. Can explain at Committee of the Whole. He’s already made the coding to do this, will provide it and volunteers to work with them. If it gets debated this time, there will be another year to tweak the coding.

1224: Hugo administrator for 2015 (and other years) points out that EPH is extremely complicated, adds a lot of work to the administrators and in explaining to the voters. Based on his experience, it won’t work. (To be honest, I think the point that it’s incredibly complex and puts a large burden on the administrators and the voters is well-founded.)

1223: “As a statistician and voting systems expert I can say the requirement of the voting data from Saturday is an extra demonstration of the effectiveness of this method. I believe that there is sufficient theoretical grounds and sufficient simulation evidence in order to the debate this method…” (Jameson Quinn)

1221: Bloom proposes to postpone indefinitely. Seconded by several. Bloom says that this amendment is excessively premature, and there is definitely not enough data.

1221: B14 debate time for EPH. And here comes Mr. Bloom!

1219: Debate time for 4 and 6. 12 minutes scheduled for debate.

1218: Motion passes, both will be on Sunday.

1217: PI from Secor we are voting for EPH and 4 and 6 to BOTH be scheduled on Sunday. Yes.

1216: PI about what order things would be discussed on Sunday. Chair intends to take them up in this order (4 and 6 and then EPH).

1216: Call to question. Seconded. Debate is closed.

1215: Ms. Olson’s point is basically that she is busy at this convention, as are many people, and pushing things deliberately to Sunday is not sensitive to that fact. Saturday’s data will not really change things.

1213: Jameson Quinn, coauthor of proposal, wants to schedule for Sunday. Notes we only have full data for 1984. This year’s data would be helpful.

1211: Yalow notes that there are six decades of data to look at, we don’t need this year’s in order to proceed.

1210: Need a speaker for and against motion before we can close debate.

1210: Motion to schedule 4 and 6 and EPH for Sunday meeting.

1210: Motion to refer to CotW tomorrow.

1209: PI do we continue to video during CotW? KS modifies motion to direct that CotW is recorded.

1208: C-o-t-W can’t do actions, they can discuss and make recommendations to the meeting as the whole. It allows for a certain level of informality in discussion. Wants to do this tomorrow and then have voting on 4 and 6 and EPH tomorrow

1207: Gary Blog(???) PI: Please explain Committee-of-the-Whole. KS: That’s what I was trying to do before you interrupted the chair with your parliamentary inquiry. (Kevin, you’re adorable.)

1207: Debate closes. Chair’s ruling is sustained, Bloom’s proposal is not germane. Bloom is invited to try to suspend rules and bring it in as new business after everything else is done.

1203: Bloom moves to amend by substitution. Wants every ballot to contain a statement that “I am personally familiar with each of the nominations I have made and believe each to be worthy of a Hugo award and…” (Ack, ran out.) Objection to it being germane.

1203: Chair recommends that we schedule a committee-of-the-whole for consideration of technical aspects. Is there an objection to that?

1202: Motion to postpone indefinitely fails. 4 and 6 will be on the agenda tomorrow.

1202: Time expires.

1201: Chris, guy who wrote 4 and 6, it’s not a knee-jerk reaction. It will all be explained in detail on Saturday.

1201: Yalow point of order: member’s speech was addressing individual person. KS accepts and notes you cannot cast aspersions on individuals in your speeches, please.

1200: Foster for: mentions the VD, problem is not the system.

1200: Buff against: feels this is a thing that will encourage people to nominate.

1159: Galloway for: Something needs to be done this year, but this is not it, he says 4 and 6 is very easy to game.

1159: Illignworth against: we need to at least talk about this. If we need something different next year, we will have this year’s debate as a basis.

1158: Jack William Bell for: urges everyone to nominate next year.

1157: Dr. Lurie against postponement: if we put it off another year, it’s going to be THREE years before anything can be done.

1157: Bloom for postponement: we do not have enough data; we aren’t even going to have a single data point until Saturday night.

1155: B11 4 and 6: Bloom moves to postpone indefinitely. 4 minutes debate time by default.

1154: Proposal to take MPC report and do nominations, leaving proposed agenda. Membership says no, we want to deal with other proposals first.

1154: Meeting returned to order.

1153: Segment two is now on youtube, segment three is uploading.

1149: TEA FOR THE TEA GOD.

1141: AT LEAST 10 minute recess.

1141: Member tries to raise amendment to motion that’s been sent to committee. His punishment for this breach of conduct is being put on the committee.

1140: Chair would really like a recess for bio break.

1140: Point of privilege, we need to slow down a little for the sign language interpreter.

1139: Point of privilege, is the CART transcription something that will be published? It can be. Can be given to the committee by the end of next week.

1137: Question is called. Debate ended. Motion is referred to committee overwhelming majority. Members are Neal, Secor, paleiamentarian, Illworth.

1136: Speech against referring to committee, because this person is busy and wants to debate it now.

1135: Neill and Secor both want to refer to committee to be reported back tomorrow with better language. Motion seconded. There are objections? People boo.

1134: Terry Neal for original, wants to allow paper or electronic signature. The intention is that both need to be allowed.

1132: Searcourt says that she spoke with site selection people; she wants to–honestly I lost track here, she speaks very quickly. She does acknowledge her amendment wording is terrible and it should be sent to committee.

1132: Note that if we are against the amendment, we are for the original language.

1131: The amendment is held as germane. Now we can debate on the amendment by substitution.

1129: Mr. Rosenblat found the actual page in Roberts Rules of Orders that prove this is germane. Wow.

1128: (Sorry, I’ve kind of lost track of the debate.)

1125: Morris Keesan against, compares this to someone wanting to amend the EPH proposal with a YA Hugo because they’re both about Hugos–but that wouldn’t be germane.

1124: For: The electronic signature amendment is specifically about site selection. Thus, germane.

1124: Dr. Lurie notes that the amendment is about electronic signatures, not about documentation.

1123: KS Explains that motion is germane because while it is antithetical to the topic of the amendment, it is still on topic.

1121: KS notes that this is fun because the chair gets to debate.

1121: Dr. Lurie wishes to appeal the ruling of the chair.

1120: PI can we please get the language of the amendment.

1120: Chair rules that amendment is germane even though it is against the spirit of the original amendment.

1119: PI by Dr. Lurie actually point of order, is the amendment not germane?

1117: PI motion to postpone indefinitely yields to motion to amend. You can bring that up later.

1117: PI is this something the Nitpicking/Flyspecking committee can deal with? No.

1115: Kate Secor moves to amend by substitution. Proposed language went by really fast, sounds like something to do with making site selection available by paper even if all other publications are selected as electronic? Motion seconded.

1114: Next is B18 Electronic Signatures

1114: Best series gets 12 minutes of debate.

1112: Meeting returned to order. Setting debate for best series.

1111: First part of the meeting is up on youtube!

1110: 2 minute technical recess.

1109: 125 against. That’s less than 2/3, motion to postpone indefinitely fails, Series will be on the agenda.

1105: 75 in favor of consideration. There’s an issue with people sitting in the back; they’re hard to see.

1103: Good thing we are figuring this out now, it’s a bit of a mess with people seated in three sections.

1102: Bringing to vote. It’s close. We’re going to have to do a serpentine. HERE WE GO. (KS Says we need the practice anyway. Probably true.)

1101: Derick Freeland for: sort this out as soon as we can; keep new people engaged. Time runs out.

1100: Terry Neil against: this proposal has already morphed a lot online; it could use another year for input.

1059: Thomas Monohan for: there’s a question as to why a single book gets the Hugo when the whole series deserves it(???). (I’m honestly confused by this point.)

1059: John Lourentz against: This would be horrendous to deal with the eligibility problems, and trying to figure out when it would fit in. Has experience administering Hugos.

1058: Warren Buff, creator of Best Series. Notes that many works in series are nominated for best novel and don’t tend to do well. Best Series would put them against other series works.

1057: B13 Best Series. Dr. Lurie moves to postpone indefinitely: we have enough Hugo stuff on our plate already. Debate begins.

1056: TYE could be resurrected tomorrow technically, if someone who voted to kill it brought it back up.

1055: Debate closed. Motion to postpone indefinitely passes, Two-Year Eligibility will not be at the main meeting this year.

1054: Hank Graham this is a major change and it’s going to be painful, but it’s necessary.

1053: Glenn Glazer against: There isn’t anything sacrosanct about a committee formed by WSFS. You can self-organize and report back.

1052: Gloria McGib in favor due to small self publishing, major publishers pick up later. Expanding the time frame makes concession for that.

1051: Yallow against: The number of works that come out in a year doesn’t decrease over time. If you’re behind in your reading, you will still be behind.

1050: This guy says his name so fast I can’t catch it: in favor, should be referred to committee.

1050: Morris Keesan against: we have enough proposed changes to the Hugos for one year. This would be better addressed in a later year.

1049: Jack Foy in favor: Breadth of the field encourages discovering works over time. One year is not enough time, particularly with things published at the end of the year.

1048: Debate continues. Secor notes that two years eligibility just makes the field twice as big.

1047: B17 Two Year Eligibility: Secor proposes to postpone indefinitely. Many of us (including me) second.

1046: B16 Nominee Diversity: 10 minutes adopted.

1046: Multiple nominations: 6 minutes adopted.

1045: PI by Gloria McGib: is there an example? This question actually ends up falling under debate.

1044: B15 Multiple nominations

1043: Setting debate times. B12 5% Solution: 6 minutes adopted.

1042: Vote. Motion fails, we will not be using the printed order.

1042: Debate time has expired.

1042: Perrianne Lurie against: we want to postpone those items until Sunday so we can see how this year’s Hugos go.

1041: For printed order: sees no reason to deviate from printed order if it hasn’t been debated by us.

1040: EPH (E Pluribus Hugo) sponsor Keith Watt notes that he has a 1300 plane on Sunday, so EPH needs to be done before he leaves please.

1040: Against motion, we can go as long as we need to on Sunday, we will get through everything no matter what.

1038: PI (Thomas Monahan) would revised schedule have E Pluribus Hugo at tomorrow’s meeting? Yes that is the intent, for debate to take place tomorrow.

1037: For the motion, it’s easier to follow along if it’s in printed order.

1036: PI if Head Table will indicate why they chose this order. Head Table doesn’t feel it needs to participate in debate. All righty then.

1035: Order as printed, please note that’s the order they were submitted in. Head table notes that they believe their order is more logical than the as received order.

1034: Kate Secor against motion; nothing is going to get missed by this, it’s just the ones where lots of people want to speak should be at the end.

1033: PI: was agenda published in advance–No? then arranging it now would be appropriate.

1031: Yallow(?) proposes that new business is done in order items appear in agenda. Many people second. Y suggests that it’s for body to decide if contentious items will be postponed.

1031: KS calls meeting back to order. Moving in to constitutional amendments. 2 pages of agenda items, not in order that they appear in printed agenda.

1030: Fresh cuppa acquired. KS notes that this is the first business meeting we’ve had where we’ve run out of agendas.

1028: 2 minute technical break to change tapes. I’m getting another cup of tea.

1027: A.4 Membership Types and Rates gets 4 minutes of debate.

1026: A.3 changing “nominee” to “finalist” on the ballot. 2 minutes of debate adopted with no objection.

1026: A.2 a story by any other name. 6 minutes of debate adopted.

1024: A.1, KS recuses himself. We are now setting debate time. No objection to 12 minutes. 10 and 20 minutes suggested. 5 is suggested, chair notes even numbers make life easier for the timekeeper. 12 looks like it wins, but someone asks for a serpentine and no one wants to do that so we move on to voting on 10 minutes. 10 minutes of debate set.

1024: Items passed on from last year. No debate or amendment allowed for these.

1023: PI, answer: The motion to change debate time limits is applicable to postpone indefinitely.

1022: Note that hearing impaired people are present. It’s important to come to the mic and not interrupt others to make things easier on the interpreters and CART. Request to not walk in front of the projector for the CART system.

1020: Parliamentary Inquiry by member (PI) debate time is total debate time and not debate time per side. Answer: Yes, time allowed is total, not per side.

1019: As a note there is normally not a Sunday WSFS meeting, but one has been tentatively scheduled in case there is business that doesn’t get finished on Friday and Saturday. (Fri, Sat, Sun are the main meetings)

1015: Nitpicking an Flyspecking committee, dealing with B.2.6; no objections to amendment, no objections to suspending rules to allow immediate application. Postpone Indefinitely is now going to work properly and we can move on.

1014: There is an inconsistency in the Postpone Indefinitely rule that we’re going to need to deal with. The purpose of this rule is that it kills the motion for this year entirely. Still allows consideration next year. It’s not supposed to be for items up for voting from last year.

1012: Note that videos of the WSFS meeting will be posted on the Youtube channel. (Please note if you have any additional links/information, feel free to drop them in the comments, I’ll approve them ASAP. Comments are unfortunately still completely moderated at this time.)

1010: Kevin introduces everyone at the head table

1008: Meeting called to order by Kevin Standlee. Lots of people for whom this is their first WSFS meeting.

1008: Basics presentation ends, making sure everything technical is in place…

1004: Note, “Postpone indefnitely” kills the motion for this year’s meeting.

1004: so far the free wifi seems to be fine, keep your fingers crossed. I will be updating this blog post every couple of minutes so just reload for the latest stuff.

1002: And we’re off. Reviewing the the rules. There’s a sign interpreter, which is awesome. This is the preliminary meeting, where we will be setting the agenda. This is, whether you realize it or not, a very important meeting.

12 thoughts on “WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog

  1. Reply mikek Aug 20,2015 14:30

    I always attend & vote at the Business Meeting(s) when at Worldcon but sadly cannot be at the con this year. I very much appreciate your live blog — while there might be additional nuance to be found watching the videos, the printed form works better for me.

  2. Reply Standback Aug 20,2015 15:50

    Thanks for doing this! Much appreciated.

  3. Reply Cat Aug 20,2015 15:59

    Wow! Thanks for blogging this; my bandwidth is not so great and it’s a lot easier to read your liveblog than download videos. I hope you also have the time (and interest) to liveblog the other meetings; I’m very interested in how EPH does.

  4. Reply Tim Illingworth Aug 20,2015 21:03

    Glad you had wifi – I had no phone service at all, not even voice or SMS.

    Spelling: Dr Perianne Lurie. Gary S Blog. Jack Foy. Glenn Glazer. Kate Secor.

  5. Reply Kendall Aug 20,2015 22:12

    I’m reading this hours later and wow, thanks – great liveblogging! And bonus points for all the tea. ;-) I love tea. . . . I’m both sorry and glad I can’t be there. I’ve only been to a few BMs, but I found myself LOLing when you quoted something Ben Yallow said – I could just HEAR his voice saying it. (This was one I actually agreed with.)

    Anyway, thanks again for liveblogging!

  6. Reply Stacey Aug 20,2015 22:31

    Thank you, very interesting read and much quicker then watching the videos.

  7. Reply Laura Resnick Aug 20,2015 23:35

    “1128: (Sorry, I’ve kind of lost track of the debate.)”

    But you hung in there longer than I could have.

  8. Reply JT Richardson (@jtingermany) Aug 21,2015 00:53

    Thank you very much for this! I know live blogs are hard, and you did very well!

  9. Reply Dave W. Aug 21,2015 01:32

    The speaker at 1223 & 1213 was Jameson Quinn, who is one of the proposers of EPH. The speaker at 1225 was Keith “Kilo” Watt, who is also one of the proposers of EPH, and who wrote the first program that implements it.

  10. Reply Dave W. Aug 21,2015 02:00

    Also, the 1040 speaker was also Keith “Kilo” Watt, and I believe he was saying that he needs to leave for the airport by 1PM, not that his plane leaves then. This is only a problem if the Sunday meeting runs over its currently scheduled end time of 12:45.

    Thanks for doing this liveblog, Rachael. It’s a lot easier to scan through than the YouTube videos alone would be.

  11. Pingback: WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog ← Rachael Acks: Sound and Nerdery

  12. Pingback: Brief(?) Summary and Commentary on Thursday and Friday WSFS Meetings ← Rachael Acks: Sound and Nerdery

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: